Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
Process speed of the journal was normal compared to others and each process step was displayed in journal submission website. In my case, 3 external reviewers who were the expert of their fields reviewed my manuscript. First decision was major revision with lots of comments. The review points were reasonable, but little bit exausting. As a result, I feel like the review improved my paper. I think the review process time was totally dependent on the reviewer's personal schedule, not on the editiorial process.
Motivation:
One reviewer didn't think this was novel enough, and that was enough to sink the paper.
Motivation:
Fast handling of manuscript. One review was very thorough, the second a bit short, but overall both helped to improve the manuscript.
Motivation:
Reviewer suggested to accept the manuscript without further revision. I am harpy with the handling process of this Journal
Motivation:
I sent to Microbiome a review about the female genital tract microbiota and its relationship with the mucosal immune system, in which we proposed a new hypothesis about the etiology of endometriosis. We chose this journal trying to publish it quickly, because its web site stated as mean time of the first revision 32 days. The assigned editor retained the manuscript for 12 weeks without sending it to external reviewers. After requesting information twice (August 16th and 27th), no reasonable explanation was provided about this delay. In fact the editor did not answer my request.
Motivation:
The whole submission process, as well as the correspondence, is done through the online submission system; this was definitely a positive aspect of my submission. I was a bit disappointed with the number and quality of the referee reports, I received only one (positive) report that was one page long. I was hoping to get some suggestions on improving the presentation of the technical (mathematical) part of the paper, but the referee focused more on less important simulation section and the impact of the paper.
Motivation:
It was a very fast and efficient rejection experience. We got four (somewhat mixed) reviews of good quality, so later we improved a lot our manuscript based on the issues the reviewers raised. We appreciated very much the humane rejection letter and the short turnaround time.
Motivation:
It wasn't clear how the manuscript failed to follow the Guide for Authors, but self-citations really were excessive - and there were other major issues with the paper that I became aware of later.
Motivation:
The reviewers rejected the manuscript due to low advancement of the state-of-the-art, which suggested that they had reviewed the paper superficially. Nevertheless, their comments were reasonable and helpful for further revisions of our manuscript
Motivation:
Four months after acceptance, the article is still to be published in the journal. The journal says the time to publication is less than 10 weeks. That is clearly not true.
Motivation:
Swift process with careful reviewers who demonstrated knowledge on the topic and gave quite useful and detailed comments. The only downside in the process is that it took some time to see the paper published online after acceptance (other publishers usually do it in less time), but overall (from submission to publication) the process was efficient.
Motivation:
Both reviewers provided enough arguments for rejection but one of them added some extra points which were simply false - exposing that he actually never read the paper completely. Strangely enough, he was the one stating that re-submission must be encouraged. It was clear from the feedback that both reviewers were not reading the paper carefully. Some remarks could be interpreted as result of my confusing style, but for some other I couldn't find any other explanation than careless reading. On the other hand, both have provided more than few constructive suggestions, improvement proposals & etc., together with few strong objections against publication that I do agree with.
Motivation:
First, I would like to apologize to readers for my imperfect English.
The review process was very disappointing due to reviewers' comments, who rejected the paper with a very vague justification of 'not beeing geographic enough'; event. 'not fitting the journal of Applied Geography'. In fact, the paper aimed at multilevel analysis of factors related to adolescent substance use with a specific focus on both international levels and country-specific millieu (Czechia). Thus, I believe the paper employed geographic aspects as an explicit subject. At the same time, the paper tried to make some recommendations for drug policy; thus, the paper was 'applied' as well.
In the paper, a detailed discussion on several issues directly related to the research subject were provided (ca. 20 pages long manuscript). However, the 2 reviewers who advised rejection of the paper in the first round provided very brief comments of ca. 5-6 sentences. The commentaries did not pointed to any issues related to the text itself; therefore, the reviewers' professional background related to the manuscript subject made questionable impression. For completeness I also note that the commentary from the 3rd reviewer was just the opposite to the previous two reviewers. The rewiever 3 simply adviced for a direct acceptance of the paper with no other changes (the review comment of a total of 3 sentences).
The review process was very disappointing due to reviewers' comments, who rejected the paper with a very vague justification of 'not beeing geographic enough'; event. 'not fitting the journal of Applied Geography'. In fact, the paper aimed at multilevel analysis of factors related to adolescent substance use with a specific focus on both international levels and country-specific millieu (Czechia). Thus, I believe the paper employed geographic aspects as an explicit subject. At the same time, the paper tried to make some recommendations for drug policy; thus, the paper was 'applied' as well.
In the paper, a detailed discussion on several issues directly related to the research subject were provided (ca. 20 pages long manuscript). However, the 2 reviewers who advised rejection of the paper in the first round provided very brief comments of ca. 5-6 sentences. The commentaries did not pointed to any issues related to the text itself; therefore, the reviewers' professional background related to the manuscript subject made questionable impression. For completeness I also note that the commentary from the 3rd reviewer was just the opposite to the previous two reviewers. The rewiever 3 simply adviced for a direct acceptance of the paper with no other changes (the review comment of a total of 3 sentences).
Motivation:
The handling process was smooth. There was a conflict between our opinion and reviewers opinion. So editor send our manuscript to the another reviewer. And finally our manuscript have been accepted. I recommend this journal
Motivation:
After 2 weeks management team told that "due to the high inflow of papers we currently have, the paper is currently in the pipeline with the assignment team and it will be assigned to the editor shortly"
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
After assigning to the editor, after 5 days editor rejected our paper by commenting just one line "Unfortunately, after an initial evaluation, I feel your manuscript is not appropriate for this journal's readership"
They took more than 3 weeks to write this one line comment.
I don't recommend this journal. Their handling process is very slow
Motivation:
The reviewer made excellent constructive comments on the paper. The changes were substantial but extremely helpful. S/He also directed me to several relevant literature in the field that improved the paper a lot.
Motivation:
The only critique I have is that the first review took so long. The comments and advice of the reviewers as well as of the managing editor/editor-in-chief were all very helpful.
Motivation:
The overall review process for BASP was excellent. My submission was acknowledged right away and I was informed that the review process had begun. The review process itself was quick and the comments I received evidenced a careful critique by two reviewers with expert knowledge of the subject area. Their comments, plus a few from one of the editors, led to a significantly better resubmission that was ultimately accepted.
Motivation:
Excellent handling of editor; editor gave space to reviewers but stepped in when needed.
Motivation:
Overall, the editor handled the manuscript very well. But in the first round review, i thought that the duration of peer-review was too long. Unfortunately, in the second round of peer-review, manuscript was sent out to different reviewers over the original reviewers, so new additional issues kept arise in every round. It led to the author's effort to revise the manuscript inefficient in term if time. But it is not a big deal, anything in the process sometimes do not move in the editor's favour. In generall, it is good.
Motivation:
The editor failed to notice scientific and technical errors in the comments by one of the reviewers. His decision was based on this incorrect information. Clearly, the reviewer was unaware of the field. The speed of reviews was much better than I had expected.
Motivation:
Our manuscript was rejected after 3 hours of submission. They even didn't look at the manuscript. But the good this is they didn't waste our time
Motivation:
Reviewer suggested not to publish our manuscript in the journal. He gave some fair comment. Overall good experience